Live courtroom report by the Stash team
The Epic v. Google case — the US antitrust lawsuit that found Google's Play Store constitutes an illegal monopoly on Android app distribution — entered a new phase today. At an April 10, 2026 hearing in the Northern District of California, Judge James Donato scheduled a summer evidentiary hearing he described as the "final act" of the case, while signaling clear skepticism that the proposed Epic-Google settlement serves the public interest.
Stash's SF-based team member, Toby Holm, attended the hearing in person. This is what game developers, platform policy watchers, and anyone building a direct-to-consumer strategy on Android need to know.
Key takeaways from the April 2026 Epic v. Google hearing
1. Judge Donato has set a timeline for the "final act"
For the first time since Epic and Google announced their surprise settlement in November 2025, there is a defined timeline for resolution. Judge Donato is scheduling a summer 2026 evidentiary hearing that he called the "final act" of the Epic v. Google saga.
After that hearing, Donato will decide one of two outcomes: approve the proposed settlement between Epic and Google, or uphold the original permanent injunction he issued in October 2024 — the ruling that forced Google to allow rival app stores inside Google Play and barred Google from requiring developers to use Google Play Billing.
The decision is still months away, but there is now a clear end in sight.
2. The judge is far from convinced the settlement serves the public interest
Donato expressed frustration with Google's multiple policy changes since the settlement was first proposed. Google announced initial changes in October 2025 to comply with the injunction, then filed amended proposed modifications with the court in March 2026. The result, in the judge's view, is confusion about what the settlement actually proposes.
Two issues drew particular scrutiny: Google Play fees on DTC and webshop transactions, and alternative app distribution on Android. Both remain unresolved points of contention.
Donato also referenced Nancy Rose, the MIT economist the court appointed as an independent expert. Rose testified in January 2026 that the proposed settlement could eliminate important competitive provisions embedded in the original injunction. That the judge continues to cite her analysis is a meaningful signal — this is not a court preparing to rubber-stamp.
3. Answers must be grounded in the original trial evidence
Donato announced he will issue a formal set of questions to both parties. He was explicit: responses must be rooted in the evidence presented during the original 2023 jury trial — the trial where a jury unanimously found Google had engaged in anticompetitive conduct.
The court is not interested in novel proposals introduced after the fact, such as differentiated fee structures for cosmetic in-app purchases. The judge wants to solve the problem that was proven at trial, using the evidence that proved it.
What the Epic v. Google hearing means for game developers
If you're building a DTC strategy on Android today
Nothing changes. The October 2024 injunction remains in effect. Developers can offer and promote alternative purchasing methods, use alternative payment systems outside Google Play Billing, and communicate directly with players about those options. Link-outs, alternative billing, and webshop distribution remain legally operational in the United States.
What's still undecided
The final framework for Android app distribution and payments is genuinely unresolved. Two questions sit at the center of the remaining dispute:
- What fees can Google charge on DTC and webshop transactions? The proposed settlement included tiered service fees — reportedly capping at 9% or 20% depending on transaction type — but whether those caps stand, change, or are replaced by injunction-based rules is undecided.
- What limits can Google impose on alternative app distribution? The injunction required Google to host rival app stores within Google Play. The proposed settlement would replace that with a "Registered App Stores" framework. Donato has questioned whether that framework genuinely improves competition or gives Google more control.
The fact that Judge Donato zeroed in on exactly these two issues — fees and distribution — should be on every game developer's radar.
The bigger picture: global regulatory context
The US court case does not exist in isolation. The global regulatory direction of travel points clearly toward open distribution and fee compression across mobile platforms:
- The EU Digital Markets Act requires Apple and Google to allow sideloading and alternative app stores on their platforms.
- Japan is advancing legislation to regulate app store fees and require alternative payment options.
- South Korea already mandates alternative billing for in-app purchases.
- The UK Competition and Markets Authority is investigating mobile ecosystems.
The outstanding question is how the US Android chapter concludes: with a negotiated settlement replacing the injunction, or the injunction continuing to stand.
Timeline: Epic v. Google case milestones
August 2020 — Epic Games files antitrust lawsuit against Google
December 2023 — Jury unanimously finds Google maintained an illegal monopoly
October 2024 — Judge Donato issues permanent injunction against Google
November 2025 — Epic and Google announce proposed settlement
January 2026 — Evidentiary hearing; Nancy Rose testifies against settlement adequacy
March 2026 — Google files amended proposed modifications
April 10, 2026 — Hearing covered in this post; summer "final act" scheduled
Summer 2026 — Final evidentiary hearing (date TBC)
Frequently asked questions
Is the Epic v. Google settlement approved?
No. As of April 2026, the proposed settlement between Epic Games and Google has not been approved. Judge James Donato has scheduled a summer 2026 evidentiary hearing to make a final decision on whether to accept the settlement or uphold the original injunction.
Can Android developers use alternative billing in the US?
Yes. Under the October 2024 injunction — which remains in effect — Android developers in the United States can offer alternative purchasing and payment methods outside Google Play Billing. They can also communicate those alternatives directly to users.
What is the Epic v. Google injunction?
The Epic v. Google injunction is a permanent court order issued by Judge James Donato in October 2024, following a jury verdict that found Google's Play Store constitutes an illegal monopoly. The injunction requires Google to allow rival app stores within Google Play, stop forcing developers to use Google Play Billing, and end exclusivity agreements that restricted competition.
What fees does Google charge on DTC transactions?
The fee structure for direct-to-consumer transactions on Android is one of the central unresolved issues in the Epic v. Google case. The proposed settlement included tiered fees, but the final framework has not been determined. Judge Donato has flagged fees as a key point of contention.
What does Epic v. Google mean for mobile game developers?
The Epic v. Google case directly affects how mobile game developers distribute and monetize their games on Android. The outcome will determine what fees Google can charge on alternative payment methods, what restrictions Google can place on rival app stores, and whether developers can build sustainable DTC revenue channels on Android without platform interference.
About Stash
The regulatory landscape for mobile gaming payments is shifting fast — across the US courts, the EU's Digital Markets Act, and emerging legislation in Asia. Stash exists to help game developers move with it, not scramble to catch up.
We're the merchant of record and DTC payments infrastructure built specifically for games. That means we handle the compliance, tax, fraud, and payment operations so studios can focus on what actually matters: building great games and direct relationships with their players.
Whether you're standing up a webshop, processing in-app purchases with Stash Pay, or figuring out what DTC looks like for your title — we've been in these rooms, followed these cases, and built the infrastructure to act on what comes next.
